urbanSTL

Doesn't matter how nice this looks. As long as people have to walk across a highway (Market) to get to it, it will be under-utilized and isolated. Needs some cool-looking pedestrian bridges.

DeBaliviere wrote:Maybe with this beautiful front yard, we'll someday see a second tower built at the Bank of America Plaza. The owners of the properties surrounding the mall have to be loving this.

A second tower along Market would be great. But didn't I read somewhere that the McGowans wanted to redo Kiener Plaza? I saw somewhere that Kiener was voted one of the ugliest public spaces in an American City. I'm inclined to believe that.

^ The Gateway Mall plan calls for a keen transformation of Kiener. Say what you will, but Kiener has too much concrete and is uglyyyyyyyyyy.

^I don't know if I would call it ugly, but its clearly dated, and my guess is that it wasn't exactly spectacular when it was new--the sheltered areas (metal roof?, painted pipe, and bland columns) look like they were chosen b/c it was the cheap design alternative.

TGE-ATW wrote:Doesn't matter how nice this looks. As long as people have to walk across a highway (Market) to get to it, it will be under-utilized and isolated. Needs some cool-looking pedestrian bridges.

Very astute observation. This needs to be accessible or it'll end up being another hang out for the homeless.

Those trees look very mature.

Maybe these are the mature trees they are planning to remove from the Memorial Plaza part of the mall (west of Tucker).

zink wrote:This is slightly OT, but HOW/WHY/WHO got to build the "Peabody" building smack in the middle of the strip of parks? (I am new to STL ) That one building ruins everything from views to the progressive parks heading to the arch... SAD SAD SAD.

Don't get me (us) started. :hell: This is a very sore subject. For more information on how this could have happened, do a search on the following words: Mayor, Vincent, and Schoemehl.

The city's Preservation Board has just given this project the green light:



<a href="http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... ent">Panel OKs downtown sculpture garden</a>



"The garden still has one major step before final city approval – endorsement by the city's Board of Public Service, which will conduct a more technical analysis of the project.



That approval could take two to three months, putting the start of construction in May or June."

If only they would develop one more block to the west and get rid of the Serra Sculpture. That will look like even more of an eyesore once the beautiful garden is complete.



Also, does market really need to be so wide? Can't they take a lane away from each side and add street parking or widen the sidewalks?

Personally, I think they should close 9th street. If I could have my way it would be closed.



My thinking is, if you are going to design a park - then dammit design / make a park.

NOPE! Do NOT close anymore downtown streets! Have you taken any planning classes?

And pedestrian bridges over market? Are you kidding? Is it REALLY that tough to walk across a street? What do you think they do on the busy streets in Washington DC, for eg?

I really think this park looks great and it will attract people out of the towers, hopefully during the weekdays.

The Park plans look great. Much more interesting than I was expecting. As someone pointed out, this is really going to make the Serra block look, how shall I say it, bleak, forlorn, desolate, etc.



Now if we can only get rid of Gateway One...

I like the sculpture park just fine. However, I think improving the block where Serra's Twain is located should've been part of the plan. And I don't see the harm into narrowing Market Street to two lanes in each direction. It is too wide IMHO.



Also, please tell me the city isn't going to get rid of on-street parking along Market and Chestnut streets! Parked cars along streets make them seem less deserted, and serve as an extra barrier between passing cars and pedestrians. Plus, the more on-street parking we have, the less of a need there is for parking garages.



Other than those gripes, I think this is going to look great!

Actually, I think any additional landscaping on the Serra block would face opposition from the artist and his patron, Emily Pulitzer. The esthetic concept for Twain (and most of Serra's work) is one of structural minimalism. The piece is supposed to exist on it's own merits; the purity of it's form must not be impeded by any external influence. The direct relationship of the sculpture to it's urban environment is critical.



In other words, they don't want it mucked up by trees or bushes or any of that kind of stuff.

Framer wrote:Actually, I think any additional landscaping on the Serra block would face opposition from the artist and his patron, Emily Pulitzer. The esthetic concept for Twain (and most of Serra's work) is one of structural minimalism. The piece is supposed to exist on it's own merits; the purity of it's form must not be impeded by any external influence. The direct relationship of the sculpture to it's urban environment is critical.



In other words, they don't want it mucked up by trees or bushes or any of that kind of stuff.

Actually, Serra had originally intended for Twain to be landscaped:



http://www.sculpture.org/documents/scma ... erra.shtml

Context has been a problem in some of Serra's public art. Twain (1982) at an outdoor St. Louis site, was never lit and landscaped according to its original plan and is not well maintained.

I believe the P-D included an illustration of Serra's original vision for Twain with landscaping in the their coverage when this grant was first offered to the city. Let me see if I can find a version still on line...



-RBB

Framer wrote:The Park plans look great. Much more interesting than I was expecting. As someone pointed out, this is really going to make the Serra block look, how shall I say it, bleak, forlorn, desolate, etc.



Now if we can only get rid of Gateway One...

If I'm not mistaken, those renderings had a lot of trees on the Serra block, which I don't think are there now.



Plus, as part of the larger Gateway Mall plan, I believe they are going to try to finish that block as Serra originally intended.

ThreeOneFour wrote:Also, please tell me the city isn't going to get rid of on-street parking along Market and Chestnut streets! Parked cars along streets make them seem less deserted, and serve as an extra barrier between passing cars and pedestrians. Plus, the more on-street parking we have, the less of a need there is for parking garages.

Steve Patterson confirmed it in his blog - no on-street parking. Pretty ridiculous, IMO.

DeBaliviere wrote:

ThreeOneFour wrote:Also, please tell me the city isn't going to get rid of on-street parking along Market and Chestnut streets! Parked cars along streets make them seem less deserted, and serve as an extra barrier between passing cars and pedestrians. Plus, the more on-street parking we have, the less of a need there is for parking garages.

Steve Patterson confirmed it in his blog - no on-street parking. Pretty ridiculous, IMO.

That is absolutely rediculous.



By the way, I think this will give the Sera sculpture some context and improve everyone's perception of it.

RBB wrote:

Framer wrote:Actually, I think any additional landscaping on the Serra block would face opposition from the artist and his patron, Emily Pulitzer. The esthetic concept for Twain (and most of Serra's work) is one of structural minimalism. The piece is supposed to exist on it's own merits; the purity of it's form must not be impeded by any external influence. The direct relationship of the sculpture to it's urban environment is critical.



In other words, they don't want it mucked up by trees or bushes or any of that kind of stuff.

Actually, Serra had originally intended for Twain to be landscaped:



http://www.sculpture.org/documents/scma ... erra.shtml

Context has been a problem in some of Serra's public art. Twain (1982) at an outdoor St. Louis site, was never lit and landscaped according to its original plan and is not well maintained.

I believe the P-D included an illustration of Serra's original vision for Twain with landscaping in the their coverage when this grant was first offered to the city. Let me see if I can find a version still on line...



-RBB

Look at slide #6, which should put to rest any illusion that Serra had intended Twain not to be surrounded by trees (or buildings).